Airborne Early Warning & Control: News & Discussion

sum · Post by **sum** » 02 Mar 2015 04:09

^^ From S.Jha:

Saurav Jha @SJha1618 · 5h 5 hours ago
AWACS India is also likely to use the A-330 as a platform.
View conversation 0 replies 1 retweet 1 favorite
Reply Retweet1 Favorite1
More
New Delhi, Delhi
Saurav Jha @SJha1618 · 5h 5 hours ago
Look Airbus is getting orders for airliners and tanker aircraft. India can't take care of Dassault also.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 02 Mar 2015 04:18

Gagan wrote:And the japs don't want to allow any offensive weapon capability on them.
The japs too are taking hesitant baby steps with military exports from their WW2 hangover.

That is Japs. As in period/full stop after the 's'. Else, it's a pejorative. Abbreviations are fine. "Japs" is a loaded word I'd rather not have associated with BRF. A few more clicks on the keyboard and we can easily do "Japanese".

JMVHT

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 02 Mar 2015 06:01

^ True enough although doubt Gagan meant it in that sense.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 02 Mar 2015 06:55

The pby catalina flying boat did countless U-boat attacks in ww2. It had a radar to detect periscope and snorkel also.

vardhank · Post by **vardhank** » 02 Mar 2015 08:01

GopiN wrote:
vardhank wrote:Reading some posts above on a naval AEW&CS aircraft, how about looking at the ShinMaywa US-2 amphibians as a platform? Big enough for 6-8 operator stations at least, 10-hour endurance, can land alongside our ships instead of on them.
On a related note, could the US-2s also be used as MRTTs for naval use?
Firstly the US 2 s are very expensive and wouldn't do a significantly better jobs than shore based assets repurporsed for the same, even refurbishing the us 2 would be more expensive (for both roles) so if I may offer my 2 c. I don'tthink that this will come to pass.

Sorry, should've made myself clearer: this would work in blue-water operations, where shore-based support is not available. As I understand it, our ship-borne AEW/AEW&CS assets are very limited in range and capability, so a couple of US-2s that could land alongside a carrier group, refuel and provide cover could work very well. Agreed they aren't cheap, but the flexibility of use with such an asset would be huge, no?

And the japs don't want to allow any offensive weapon capability on them.
The japs too are taking hesitant baby steps with military exports from their WW2 hangover.

Why should an AEW aircraft be regarded as an offensive weapon? You could very easily argue that it's a defensive one - even the Japanese Self-Defense forces have them (E-2 Hawkeyes). And I don't think the Abe government gives a whit about any WW2 hangover. This is indeed a baby step, but if India wanted to convert a 'civilian-use' aircraft into a 'defensive weapon', Abe would wag a finger on one hand and high-five us with the other.

OT alert

The pby catalina flying boat did countless U-boat attacks in ww2. It had a radar to detect periscope and snorkel also.

I don't know why flying boats died out - this obsession with carrier-capable aircraft is silly. Why not land alongside a carrier instead of on it? Versatile planes with a big belly for all kinds of stuff - the possibilities are huge. OT alert ends

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 02 Mar 2015 09:22

the ancestor of the US2 was deployed in service for ASW patrols.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shin_Meiwa_US-1A

since it can land in reasonable seas , I think arranging to refuel it, load new sonobuoys and change the crew should be possible from a small supply ship like a submarine tender. but changing the heavy weapons like LWT or depth charges would not be feasible.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 02 Mar 2015 13:51

Gagan wrote:And the japanese don't want to allow any offensive weapon capability on them.
The japs too are taking hesitant baby steps with military exports from their WW2 hangover.

Hi Gagan, thanks for making the change.

vardhank · Post by **vardhank** » 02 Mar 2015 20:01

Singha wrote:the ancestor of the US2 was deployed in service for ASW patrols.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shin_Meiwa_US-1A

since it can land in reasonable seas , I think arranging to refuel it, load new sonobuoys and change the crew should be possible from a small supply ship like a submarine tender. but changing the heavy weapons like LWT or depth charges would not be feasible.

You'd probably need a different platform for heavier weaponry (Beriev Be-200?), though an added ASW capability to the US-2 should not be difficult at all - after all, the US-2 is a development of the US-1, which is itself an SAR version of the PS-1 ASW aircraft. To quote from your link above:

The PS-1 ASW variant carried homing torpedoes, depth charges and 127mm rockets as offensive armament but had no defensive weapons. It was equipped with dipping sonar, which had limited use as it required the aircraft to land on water to deploy. It could also carry up to 20 sonobuoys.

However, mainly what I'm talking about on this thread at least is AEW&CS capability for our aircraft carriers, or for a marine expeditionary force-type thing. I don't know whether the Embraer platform is likely to be carrier-capable, but this one doesn't need a carrier at all - even if it's purely a destroyer/LHD/LPD fleet with no carrier support, an AEW version of the US-2 could happily tag along.

The whole idea of a blue-water navy is being able to operate far from home bases, or indeed any bases. A flying boat AEW&CS gives you a vital component of that. In general, I think the IN should look into a large amphibious platform or platforms as an AEW&CS/ASW/ASuW/MRTT aircraft, even if it isn't the US-2.

Picklu · Post by **Picklu** » 02 Mar 2015 20:09

Along with US-2, why don't we purchase a few japanese whaling ships as well and modify their ramp to stow the planes on board when not in use?

vardhank · Post by **vardhank** » 02 Mar 2015 20:22

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 02 Mar 2015 20:34

pretty out of the box idea vardhank ... worthy of a james bond

but the real achilles heel of the concept are twofold
1) Service ceiling: 7,195 m (23,606 ft). this more than the 12,000 ft of the KA31/Merlin AEW types. BUT ideally you need them at 35000-45000ft for much longer radar horizon. a Triton based AEW would be even higher perhaps 55000ft and well above any weather fronts.

2) though it could be refueled and even recrewed at sea, it would still need to return to land if no fresh crew were available as it cannot towed like a boat behind a 25 knot task force. and any work on the engine and avionics which I understand is fairly common for complex AWACS avionic suite needs a trip to the land base.

so its not anything extra beyond what a EMB145 can do at much less cost and complexity.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 02 Mar 2015 20:37

Well if the sea plane AEW ever needs a fighter escort this could be explored

vardhank · Post by **vardhank** » 02 Mar 2015 20:43

Singha wrote:pretty out of the box idea vardhank ... worthy of a james bond

but the real achilles heel of the concept are twofold
1) Service ceiling: 7,195 m (23,606 ft). this more than the 12,000 ft of the KA31/Merlin AEW types. BUT ideally you need them at 35000-45000ft for much longer radar horizon. a Triton based AEW would be even higher perhaps 55000ft and well above any weather fronts.

2) thought it could be refueled and even recrewed at sea, it would still need to return to land if no fresh crew were available as it cannot towed like a boat behind a 25 knot task force. and any work on the engine and avionics which I understand is fairly common for complex AWACS avionic suite needs a trip to the land base.

so its not anything extra beyond what a EMB145 can do at much less cost and complexity.

Thank you. THIS reply, rather than the one about whaling ships, is useful.

KumarA · Post by **KumarA** » 03 Mar 2015 12:28

If India-Japan, Modi-Shinzo relations are so good and Japan is ready to sell military and aerospace platforms to India, what exactly is holding the US-2 contract? Why it is not being concluded? That makes me ask whether Japan would also be interested in P-75I if US-2 comes along? Any clarification?

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 03 Mar 2015 14:00

KumarA, having high level conversation is not the same as having a contract ready for signature.

Also, for a newbie my advice would be to stop lighting fire on every thread and do some reading first. If you don't have anything to add to the conversation, then don't. The forum is not there to feed you but for a constructive dialogue.

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 28 Mar 2015 19:08

A330 has been selected for AWACS-I project.
Apparently A330 was the sole bid for AWACS-India project. 6 A330 shall be purchased with first two for prototype testing. The price tag is Rs. 51 billion (750 million Euros). Ironically, the tanker deal for A330 hasn't been signed yet. The other platforms being considered were Boeing 767 and Il-76.
https://twitter.com/livefist/status/581764467903447040
https://twitter.com/livefist/status/581763867295940608

The concept was displayed last month at Aero India:

Preliminary details about the radar:-

http://drdo.gov.in/drdo/tenders/viewTen ... Micro=4591

CABS has been entrusted with Design and Development of Airborne Surveillance Systems. The envisaged system will have uniform surveillance performance over full 360 degree coverage. The front end of the Radar and the Identification Friend or foe (IFF) systems shall be housed in an ellipsoidal radome on top of the fuselage installed using pylons. In addition suitable mechanical structures to transfer the air loads will be designed and housed in the radome. The radome also houses parts of the liquid cooling system(piping structure) and ladder system for maintenance.

Diameter of the radome (of the order of) 10.0 m
Height of the radome(of the order of) 2.0 m
Radome shape Ellipsoidal
Weight of the radome Shells (about) 1500Kg
Electromagnetically transparent in S and L band
Withstand aerodynamic loads on the radome as per flight envelope of wide body aircraft.
The radome shall have lighting detectors/dischargers and should have surface which will not permit ice accumulations.

The radome shall have 4 shells (3 in case of design change) and shall be easy to install /de-install as seen in figure 2.

The envisaged will have 4 faces arranged in a rectangular /square configuration (see Fig 3). The shells shall have suitable attachments to the antenna panels/supporting structures.

Later tender details indicate that the radar will have L, S and X band GaN modules.
http://drdo.gov.in/drdo/drdojsp/downloa ... Sep_13.pdf
MIMO capability is also speculated with the AWACS-I.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 Mar 2015 20:49

I take one look into the dreamy eyes, dharmic radar and long flowing wings of the a330 model above and know it is "the one"

Love. Deep love.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 28 Mar 2015 21:17

How much are we actually paying for the A330s?

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 28 Mar 2015 21:32

but the real achilles heel of the concept are twofold
1) Service ceiling: 7,195 m (23,606 ft). this more than the 12,000 ft of the KA31/Merlin AEW types. BUT ideally you need them at 35000-45000ft for much longer radar horizon. a Triton based AEW would be even higher perhaps 55000ft and well above any weather fronts.

A triton based (GH based) Air to Air AEW was looked at as part of the AOA for the MR-TIP and other sensor programs but was not pursued because it was not expected to have the technology for dynamic air to air early warning and data handling until the mid to late 30's. If ops in afghanistan has shown anything it is the value of having a lot of Pipe-space and there isn't really a possibility of "outsourcing" your C2 from the sensor to some other battle-management system. Although it may look attractive, it isn't given the sort of pipeline demand current in place and likely to be in place. Every time there is more availability, the demand rises. Full motion video sucks up a lot

. Even with 2 brand new waveforms on the verge of induction or advanced development (TTNT and FDL) there isn't any hope for such a concept. Hence all future AEW and C2 efforts such as the ongoing JSTARS-Recap and the medium term E-3 Recap (expected to begin in 2020) are not counting on a whole lot of data being piped and processed elsewhere although the plan very much as was with the E-10 to bring together land, air and space based battle management on one platform. Current 5th generation capability when combined with legacy battle management and C2 is described as " Sensor Rich and Processing Poor". Programs to address this shortfall are underway. You also do not really need a dedicated high flying unmanned AEW system when you have a large number of 5th generation assets in the air. Each one of those assets is an ISR assets and if you figure out a way for them to share seamless data then you do not need a GH - Perfect distributed situational awareness. MADL does that for the F-35, A couple of projects are being validated for 5th to 4th and the plan for 5th to 5th is to switch to a hybrid L band LPI data link (utilizing L band sensors on F-35 and F-22) as a launching pad for either MADL standardization on all stealth fleet or (more likely) FDL standardization on entire stealth fleet. The only time you really need an advanced AEW specially one with very highly sensitive and classfied sensors is when you are penetrating with an attack force. Here the GH is not the best choice since it does not have LO or other survival means (speed for example). Hence the P-AEA and RQ-180 as part of the LRS mission.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 28 Mar 2015 23:44

Indian defence procurement gets more and more astonishing everyday. After the entire MMRCA boondoggle where we first specified towering requirements and decided to worry about price later, one would have hoped that sense would have returning to the MoD. And yet again we find the whole aircraft being chosen to fit around a radar (one's that's still on paper). Single vendor deal, where we underwrite Airbus' development costs for an aircraft which it will then market to the Brits, French and Saudis as E-3 replacements (anyone think we'll be paid royalties?).

kit · Post by **kit** » 29 Mar 2015 00:28

Viv S wrote:Indian defence procurement gets more and more astonishing everyday. After the entire MMRCA boondoggle where we first specified towering requirements and decided to worry about price later, one would have hoped that sense would have returning to the MoD. And yet again we find the whole aircraft being chosen to fit around a radar (one's that's still on paper). Single vendor deal, where we underwrite Airbus' development costs for an aircraft which it will then market to the Brits, French and Saudis as E-3 replacements (anyone think we'll be paid royalties?).

Well which one would you suggest if you had a choice ? .. a recent platform being ideal and in the same class ? are any of those readily optimized for the aerodynamics of the DRDO radar

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 29 Mar 2015 01:14

kit wrote:Well which one would you suggest if you had a choice ? .. a recent platform being ideal and in the same class ? are any of those readily optimized for the aerodynamics of the DRDO radar

The DRDO radar doesn't exist yet AFAIK and can therefore be designed for the platform chosen, rather than choosing a platform to fit an on-paper radar. And I'd suggest the 737 Wedgetail (Top Hat minus the Northrop Grumman avionics). The platform is already developed, tested and in-service with a 40,000ft+ service ceiling. Being a narrow body airliner, there'll be less console space available but given that it'll cost less than half of what an AEW&C configured A-330 would, its worth it.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 29 Mar 2015 01:25

Who is doing the system integration for this project? The aircraft supplier or DRDO?

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 29 Mar 2015 02:10

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 29 Mar 2015 02:10

brar_w wrote:Who is doing the system integration for this project? The aircraft supplier or DRDO?

Assuming they run it on the same pattern as the Phalcon & ERJ-45I pattern, that would DRDO primarily. The vendor will build the aircraft and fly it down to Bangalore where the mission systems will be integrated and tested on the aircraft.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 29 Mar 2015 02:10

Viv S wrote:
kit wrote:Well which one would you suggest if you had a choice ? .. a recent platform being ideal and in the same class ? are any of those readily optimized for the aerodynamics of the DRDO radar
The DRDO radar doesn't exist yet AFAIK and can therefore be designed for the platform chosen, rather than choosing a platform to fit an on-paper radar. And I'd suggest the 737 Wedgetail (Top Hat minus the Northrop Grumman avionics). The platform is already developed, tested and in-service with a 40,000ft+ service ceiling. Being a narrow body airliner, there'll be less console space available but given that it'll cost less than half of what an AEW&C configured A-330 would, its worth it.

Not entirely true. I had posted about this drdo tender when it had come out, about two years back. Even at that time they had concluded a lot of studies. they had considered a 3 antennas in a chapati configuration and a 4 antennas in a chapati configuration. After significant studies, they had decided on the later. Subsequently, this tender was floated. So, it is not all on paper.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 29 Mar 2015 02:18

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 731380.cms
India to build two next-generation AWACS for Rs 5,113 crore

The Manohar Parrikar-led defence acquisitions council (DAC) approved the building of two AWACS, which will involve mounting indigenous 360-degree coverage AESA (active electronically scanned array) radars on Airbus A-330 wide-body jets, at a cost of Rs 5,113 crore.

The eventual plan is to induct eight such aircraft under the "AWACS-India" project since both China and Pakistan are well ahead of India in this critical area in modern-day warfare, as was reported by TOI earlier.

"It will take at least 5-7 years to build the first two AWACS. Six more AWACS will be ordered when the project is mid-way," said a source. The decision, incidentally, comes ahead of PM Narendra Modi's visit to France and Germany, which primarily house the European Airbus consortium, in early-April.
............
But the clear takeaway from the DAC was the AWACS project, where a single-vendor situation had emerged. "Airbus was the only aviation major ready for the design and development project. It will involve structural and electrical changes to the A-330 aircraft...the airframe will have to be cut to fit the radar dome on the top," said a source.

The "AWACS-India" project, with 80%:20% cost sharing between IAF and DRDO, is far more ambitious than the ongoing project to build three AEW&C (airborne early warning and control system) systems at a cost of Rs 2,275 crore. Under it, indigenous 240-degree coverage radars have been fitted on three smaller Brazilian Embraer-145 jets.

"The AEW&C project is running years behind schedule, with the completion date now pushed back to December 2015. But it will help in the larger AWACS project. Then, of course, the case for procurement of two more Israeli Phalcon AWACS after the induction of the three is now in the final stages," said the source.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 29 Mar 2015 02:21

brar_w wrote:Who is doing the system integration for this project? The aircraft supplier or DRDO?

Assuming they run it on the same pattern as the Phalcon & ERJ-45I, that would DRDO primarily. The vendor will build the aircraft and fly it down to Bangalore where the mission systems will be integrated and tested on the aircraft.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 29 Mar 2015 02:25

indranilroy wrote:Not entirely true. I had posted about this drdo tender when it had come out, about two years back. Even at that time they had concluded a lot of studies. they had considered a 3 antennas in a chapati configuration and a 4 antennas in a chapati configuration. After significant studies, they had decided on the later. Subsequently, this tender was floated. So, it is not all on paper.

I'm not doubting their technical ability, they have after all integrated a full range of systems on the ERJ-145. My point was that the development is still at a very preliminary stage wherein if the configuration was to be altered there would be no significant writing off required, of already expended capital.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 29 Mar 2015 02:28

For long term, this could be a good decision. I'm disappointed that Emb-145 program has been curtailed so abruptly. It clearly has lot going for it. Perhaps IN can be the only one to extend the program.

IAF once again has demonstrated that a bird in bush is better than two in hand.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 29 Mar 2015 02:38

pankajs wrote:http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 731380.cms
India to build two next-generation AWACS for Rs 5,113 crore
.
.
.
But the clear takeaway from the DAC was the AWACS project, where a single-vendor situation had emerged. "Airbus was the only aviation major ready for the design and development project. It will involve structural and electrical changes to the A-330 aircraft...the airframe will have to be cut to fit the radar dome on the top," said a source.

The RFP was formulated such that the only alternative were two very ageing airframes (B767 & IL-76). The expenditure related to the 'cutting' of the airframe, and the 'structural and electrical changes' will ultimately be passed on to the customer by Airbus.

JTull wrote:For long term, this could be a good decision. I'm disappointed that Emb-145 program has been curtailed so abruptly. It clearly has lot going for it. Perhaps IN can be the only one to extend the program.

IAF once again has demonstrated that a bird in bush is better than two in hand.

Truly incorrigible. Though the PAF has its fleet split due to compatibility issues, it still fields more AEW&C aircraft than we do. The PLAAF of course is a different story. But the urgency that the IAF displays with regard to the Rafale seems to vanish when it comes to the DRDO AEW&C, which appears to be a solid-system and just as badly needed.

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 29 Mar 2015 02:59

IAF is going Navy way now with AWAC program being matured by DRDO. For every subsequent version they will order kind of three or more type.

Plus EMB-145 has space and endurance constraints.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 29 Mar 2015 03:16

Look at EMB-145 as development phase.
The current order for 2 AWACS as prototype.
6+ additional AWACS order as the production run.

This is supported by the fund allocation where 80% fund will come from the IAF budget. That implies a high degree of confidence wrt work done during the development phase (EMB-145). This is not to imply that the existing work can just be transferred to the new plane. This is a brand new platform with a next level of system but the funding pattern implies that all the building blocks are in place and the system integration experience has been very good. Also reflects the confidence of the forces with the end result of the development phase and their confidence on its scaling up.

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 29 Mar 2015 03:52

Yes, IAF is investing 80% in the new new AWACS, but always focusing on Mk2 or sweeter/better future is exactly how you describe a mirage.

They need eyes in the sky otherwise they wouldn't be ordering new Phalcons and new AWACS. So why not get 5 of the Emb145 AEW aircraft for fraction of the price while they potentially wait 7+ years for the AWACS? Also, why not get Phalcons on the new A330 platform, if they have time to wait. If nothing, Emb145 would atleast serve to train the entire depth of the air force in operational use and maintenance.

I have serious concerns about IAF leadership's ability to plan for the future.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 Mar 2015 07:17

I think iaf prefers to have the 13 stations mode of the phalcon.

But atleast 5 more emb145 could be used to fill gaps and support navy else navy should order it themselves.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 29 Mar 2015 07:47

India has gone for the costliest AWACS platform in the world. Yayy way to go!!!

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 29 Mar 2015 08:15

Gyan wrote:India has gone for the costliest AWACS platform in the world. Yayy way to go!!!

51 billion rupees is for just two prototypes and probably is for the entire system. 3 Il-76 with phalcons costed us 1.5 billion dollars in 2004. Seems reasonable, considering that others didn't even bid.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 Mar 2015 09:08

A33o would have unrefueled endurance around 16 hrs while emb145 around 4. So widespread use of emb145 means buying and tying up more refuelers also.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 29 Mar 2015 09:57

It is interesting that the Boeing 767 wasn't selected as it is already being used in an AWACS platform and the aerodynamic analysis is complete with good data from having a mounted radome. This must now be done with the A330. The results will affect radar performance and cause delays in the program. It isn't as if it can't be done, but time may be lost.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 29 Mar 2015 10:01

Boeing chose not to bid.